Greenpeace Ad

[Muta]

Pattison Advertising turns down a proposed billboard in Edmonton:


http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...149/story.html

I'm perfectly okay with the notion that private businesses can refuse clients wherever they see fit, but really... what's the big deal? Greenpeace is a paying customer, and this ad is ultimately about solar power - a renewable resource in sunny-rich Alberta. Somehow, I'd be inclined to believe if this were a pro-oil and gas industry poster, it'd get immediately passed.

What's your opinion on this? I think it's perfectly legal and within the rules of business, but it stinks of back-scratching and buddy-buddy relationships.

[You Need a Thneed]

I don't see the problem with the proposed billboard.

[ken0042]

How much money do oil companies spend with Pattison compared to Greenpeace et al? If I was a business I would turn down business that would offend my largest group of customers.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Muta

What's your opinion on this? I think it's perfectly legal and within the rules of business, but it stinks of back-scratching and buddy-buddy relationships.

I think back scratching has nothing to do with it. It's going to piss off a lot more people than it is make them say, "you know, that's a good point".

Given the economy in the last few years I don't think most Edmontonians would appreciate billboards advertising against what the city's (and largely, province) economy is based upon. It's not like it's just an ad to promote solar energy; it's an ad with a backhanded slap at the oil industry.

And given the antics of greenpeace in the province, I'm not surprised, nor bothered in the least that Pattison would reject this.

[undercoverbrother]

I dated a chick that worked for Greenpeace. She was top notch freaky.

[wookster]

Fine with me if its rejected...Pattison is a private company and should be able to choose its clients.

[Lanny's Stache]

Greenpeace got exactly what they wanted when Pattison said no. They get a ton of publicity and they didn't have to pay for any of it. I am tired of companies falling for this. Just say yes, and charge them extra.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How much money do oil companies spend with Pattison compared to Greenpeace et al? If I was a business I would turn down business that would offend my largest group of customers.

That's the key. How close is Pattison to the oil and gas industry? What if they aren't as close as its being implied?

I don't like Greenpeace as much as the next Albertan, but what if the ad was simply a promotion for solar power, chiding it as the clean energy solution for the future? Would there still be a problem?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

I think back scratching has nothing to do with it. It's going to piss off a lot more people than it is make them say, "you know, that's a good point".

An ad company should never be in the business of caring about pissing people off. An ad company should be in the business of generating the most view, traffic, discussion, etc. regardless of the message. This, to me, is damage control for the oil industry.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, either. It just sucks that a message, whether you like it or not, is being censored, and likely because of outside influences.

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by Muta

That's the key. How close is Pattison to the oil and gas industry? What if they aren't as close as its being implied?

I don't like Greenpeace as much as the next Albertan, but what if the ad was simply a promotion for solar power, chiding it as the clean energy solution for the future? Would there still be a problem?

Heh. I'd bet if someone other than Greenpeace proposed that billboard it wouldn't be an issue at all. Hasn't BP put out similar ads in the past promoting their "green" side?

[MarchHare]

I generally think Greenpeace is an organization of radical loonies who do a disservice to their cause by giving all environmentalists a bad name (much like PETA does for those who are against animal cruelty but aren't insane), but I don't really see any problem with that billboard.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by fotze

If oil never spilled there would be a ridiculous amount of unemployed enviro science professionals.

If people behaved themselves and kept their promises, there would be many unemployed lawyers.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I generally think Greenpeace is an organization of radical loonies who do a disservice to their cause by giving all environmentalists a bad name (much like PETA does for those who are against animal cruelty but aren't insane), but I don't really see any problem with that billboard.

I used to work for Greenpeace, and I ain't a radical loonie. Most people I met in the Toronto office weren't radical loonies, and a number of them actually prided themselves in their anti-hippie stance.

Greenpeace is a lot more moderate than many environmental organizations out there.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by fotze

If oil never spilled there would be a ridiculous amount of unemployed enviro science professionals.

To play devil's advocate, there'd also be alot more solar energy researchers and scientists. It evens out in the end.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

This is what I hate about Greenpeace.

Do they actually sit around saying things like this?

Greenpeacer #1: Well we've got some budget money, what should we spend it on
Greenpeacer #2: How about some solar power initiatives?
GP1: Sounds good, what did you have in mind
GP2: Well I know of this reasearcher who is looking into some sol..
GP1: No, that's stupid, how about a billboard that makes fun of an oil spill?
GP2: Wow....that's why you're the leader!

[wookster]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I used to work for Greenpeace, and I ain't a radical loonie. Most people I met in the Toronto office weren't radical loonies, and a number of them actually prided themselves in their anti-hippie stance.

Greenpeace is a lot more moderate than many environmental organizations out there.

Im not disputing your point but Im just wondering that if a lot of them pride themselves on their anti-hippie stance then why does Greenpeace always just show a radical side to the public? Whenever I hear of Greenpeace on the news its always because they've done something thats usually over the top to try and get a point across. The original post about the billboard is probably the Calmest thing I've ever heard of them trying to do.

I assume that being radical is the best way to get on the news but to me when its way over the top it usually paints a negative picture for Greenpeace in many people's eyes as well.

[Regulator75]

Sea Sheppard >>>>>>> Greenpeace

[Canuck-Hater]

I have no problem with this, theres alot of truth to that slogan. Its hard to argue with it really.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I used to work for Greenpeace, and I ain't a radical loonie. Most people I met in the Toronto office weren't radical loonies, and a number of them actually prided themselves in their anti-hippie stance.

Greenpeace is a lot more moderate than many environmental organizations out there.

The conservative media pundits have done an excellent job of smearing environmental groups as "radicals". And you can see the fruits of that in this thread.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Muta

An ad company should never be in the business of caring about pissing people off. An ad company should be in the business of generating the most view, traffic, discussion, etc. regardless of the message. This, to me, is damage control for the oil industry.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, either. It just sucks that a message, whether you like it or not, is being censored, and likely because of outside influences.

First part: Absolutely an ad company should be worried about pissing people off. If they have clients that will be offended by this ad, and could potentially pull business from them, then as a responsible business they should not run the ad, as it could very well hurt their bottom line.

Second part: As per my first point, to me this is damage avoidance for the ad company.

Third part: An ad agency is under no obligation to put this up, nor are they stoppoing Greenpeace from getting thier message out in some other manner. This isn't censorship, it's a private company making a decision about what messages they want to be associted with.